Once more... what the hell is wrong with people?! Guns are not toys; they are tools with a specific set of purposes to be used with responsibility, rationality, and respect! Where is the common sense, the supervision, the basics of safety?!

As a family, we have lived with and used firearms for several generations without a single negative incident relating to safety or responsibility. I simply don't understand how people can be so ignorant, especially in situations where children are present!

Knowing the usefulness of keeping firearms and using them in a rural setting for hunting and other purposes, I have to agree that people should be allowed to legally own and use firearms, but the nation should have a much more balanced sets of regulations where the purchase and use of such tools are concerned.

Illinois has a very strict set of rules relating to the ownership and use of guns, and I think the same, or similar regulations should be enforced nationwide.

I don't know... it's very hard to regulate or legislate when it comes to stupid... how can people not THINK when it comes to such potential danger?

I shot nearly 1000 rounds this week, no one got hurt. Considering the number of weapons and huge amounts of ammo sold annually, the rate of injury is quite low.
Too bad govt officials cant seem to work on getting the bad guys out of circulation? We need some puish on the matter.

Guns are sized for youth, many of whom are excellent with weapons and many have more sense than some adults. My kids had guns, their kids have guns. They have training and practice safe gun handling.
What can we do about stupid? Pass a law?

How many people have been killed by terrorist in
America since 9/11? How many people have been killed by guns? Murder alone averages 11,000 a year, and I read that the total gun deaths just for last year, 2012 were over 32,000- and since 9/11/2001 equals somewhere around 400,000+

Terrorist deaths in America? Depends on who's counting, but approx. 20 by Islamic extremist, and about 29 from our good old right wing tea party types. Maybe less. Since Sept. 2001.

compared to guns?? Maybe we should focus more on gun control rather than invading American's phones and computers. 20 or 30 deaths compared to almost 500,000?

So according to this link in the 11 and 1/2 years it seems like gun deaths are well over 330,000. I didn't add them up but you can see since 9/11gun deaths have averaged over 30,000 a year-link Just click on" Death and Injury" at the link and then click" Gun Deaths".

As far as terrorist deaths, you can refer to the link above from my last post -Mother Jones Magazine.

- Add those 11 years up (2012 is not given) and add a few more for deaths in 2001 since Sept 11th of that year and then add the gun deaths for 2013 so far...

Just one source of course, but what ever it is, it's a huge difference between American gun deaths and American Terrorist deaths since Sept 11 2001.

And my mother was a nice woman and not part of this discussion. It's just offensive to name call.

The fanci is just an unpaid shill for the NRA, happy to contribute his knowledge and support for the deaths by gunshot of over 30,000 humans a years in the US. The Second Amendment is more important than human lives.

Just put the counter up for information as it has been 6 months today since the school shooting. The numbers count deaths by gun verified in the last six months and is interactive so you can check each one by clicking on the stick people or the circles. This includes violent deaths and accidental deaths as long as it is a result of gunfire. It is strait forward information and just there for your consideration . Each have their own experience and beliefs on what firearms are for and how they should be used and taken care of. What can we do to eliminate the deaths that are the result of discharge of these firearms whatever the reason?

I'm not a shill for anyone, and it's very obvious that the issue is being blown way out of proportion, using people's fears, personal inexperience, and/or ignorance against them... no offense to anyone.

Death comes in many forms, the firearm only one in a long list of tools or items that when used improperly, without care or safety, without supervision or respect, without responsibility or common sense, can be the cause of death or great injury. So can any number of other things.

Why don't we talk about the number of deaths or injuries attributed to alcohol, drug abuse, auto accidents, or a combination of those things... or how about the suicide rate for victims of bullying or bigotry? What about dangerous sports, or illness and disease, the numbers of innocents that die every day due to abuses, crimes, starvation, slavery, war, peaceful protesters mowed down by fascist, police state governments, and any number of other things that lead to untimely death or maiming?

Guns are only dangerous in hands that do not respect them, or do not consider the consequences for a lack of safety, a lack of knowledge. Much like owning a large, powerful dog trained to protect, they are not an item everyone should own.

Logic and common sense tells me that anything can be a deadly weapon in the wrong hands. But when in hands that do respect them, do follow safety procedure, do have knowledge, guns can be the only thing that saves a life, or sustains it.

Not everyone lives in the apparent utopia of an urban or suburban setting, where the police are only 2 seconds away for your protection, and not everyone can count on an adequate food supply from stocked, handy shelves of a plethora of grocery stores. Not everyone lives where predators are scarce or nonexistent.

In other words, firearms are not dangerous in hands that do not abuse the privilege of ownership and proper use, and it's not right to paint all firearm owners with the same brush. It's not right that responsible firearm owners should have to continually defend what is a Constitutional right.

I'm not a teabagger, not a Republican, not conservative, not an NRA member, not a shill for any corporation or company. I'm someone who realizes the positive aspects of having the proper tools for the job, and realizes the responsibility that such things entail.

Guns are not the only thing in irresponsible hands killing innocent people, and attached statistics should really be put into perspective. Somehow, we never seem to hear about the lives guns have saved, the amount of animal suffering put to rest, the meat provided through the use of guns, the satisfaction and pride of winning competitions, or how a father and son or mother and daughter can form a bond through the shared knowledge of hunting, or participating in the skill of competition shooting together, etc.

I'll never understand how the only side to the issue highlighted is always so negative. There are many positives to firearm ownership, and they come with a great need for respect, safety, responsibility, supervision of those learning, and proper knowledge. Guns are not toys; they are utilitarian tools to be used in proper context. They are often items of great craftsmanship, highly collectible, sometimes extremely expensive, many custom crafted, to be handed down from one generation to the next.

They are not just items of death and destruction. Perspective into the greater picture is necessary, in my opinion. There are many positives to firearm ownership and use.

Why don't we talk about the number of deaths or injuries attributed to alcohol, drug abuse, auto accidents, or a combination of those things... or how about the suicide rate for victims of bullying or bigotry? What about dangerous sports, or illness and disease,...

I don't think this is a fair analogy to gun deaths. First off, if I continued your quote you mentioned crime, war, protesters mowed down.. Those things are usually done with guns anyhow.

And I do think we address disease and illness. Cars and sports we are also always trying to make safer as well.

But many of those things are not - like driving to work ( I take a train) intended to kill or wound. A gun fires a bullet that is intent to kill or harm...

Playing soccer or basketball or eating fatty foods, or having a drink is not the same and I resent that argument. And if shooting a bow and arrow was contributing the same amount of deaths and murders as guns I would feel the same way. But it doesn't.

I just feel those arguments are so spurious that they should be stood up too. And I'm sure we've mentioned many a time that driving a car requires a license and a test and cars are registered and are required to have insurance and even a hairdresser has to have a license etc....

While I agree with Jodik on many issues, including the 2nd amendment, these apologies for lack of gun control are just sickening. Even free speech has some controls (hate speech, child pornography, inciting a riot, even bullying in some places like schools.)

You just insult our intelligence when you bring up personal or home protection with guns, as if that precludes registration and taking responsibility by requiring safety classes and the like...

"University of Houston grad student Kyle Coplen has begun an eyebrow-raising initiative dubbed the “Armed Citizen Project” (ACP). According to the project’s website, ACP will seek out willing participants in high-crime neighborhoods of Houston and give them a 20 gauge shotgun along with proper training in safety and self defense.

“We’re looking at deterring crime by empowering citizens,” said Coplen in an interview with ABC News. “[Shotguns are] easy to use, easy to learn how to use. They’re, not very expensive and they’re just all around great home defense weapons.”

The goal of the project, other than to provide self-defense weapons to some individuals who may not be able to afford them otherwise, is to study the correlation between an increase of firearms and crime. The project operates on donations and funds go directly into purchasing firearms.

The reason ACP chose a 20 gauge shotgun is based on a number of factors, including price, practicality, and low likelihood of the weapon being re-purposed for crime. Currently, ACP seeks to arm those that are most likely to be the victim of crime, like single mothers in bad neighborhoods. Applicants will be submitted to a background check as well as a mandatory weapon safety course.

“Many people have asked me if I am concerned about the potential liability that I may incur from this project,” said Coplen. “The short answer is no. We will follow every applicable law, and weapons will only go to those that qualify.”

Coplen believes that the existence of weapons in the hands of citizens will greatly deter crime and that his project could provide statistical proof to the gun control debate. He is a staunch Second Amendment supporter.

“The future belongs to the bold, we must fight,” Coplen concludes." end quote

I don't have a problem with this. It has training - which I would assume would include how to keep the weapon safe from children, the weapon itself it appropriate, not some semi-automatic military caliber rifle with a 30 round magazine, the people getting them have a legitimate argument that they could use one, they have a background check, and so on.

By putting proper regulations on ownership and use as some states have already done. How many times does this need to be said?

It doesn't do much good if all 50 states are not on the same page, and all it takes is crossing a border or looking into illegal purchase without identification or a look at a background to learn of criminal or mental issues.

If our Justice and LE systems weren't so intent upon filling private prisons with first time, non-violent offenders to reap monetary rewards, we might actually be able to keep violent offenders out of the ownership and use loop.

FOID cards need to be renewed every 5 or 10 years, depending on when they were initially applied for. The law has changed since the cards were first issued back in 1968/69.

The application is straightforward, and all applicants are run through NICS, Illinois State Police, the Department of Human Services, and other databases to check for anything that would disqualify that applicant from holding a valid FOID card.

It's inexpensive to obtain, can be used as any other legal photo identification card, and must be carried where firearms are present. Upon intended purchase of firearms or ammunition, the FOID card is required, and the seller/dealer is required to call the IL State Police for a validity check, and an automated search of several criminal and mental health databases.

The problem is... not all states have such a program, and persons not of Illinois residency are not required to hold a valid FOID card.

If all states had a like program, there would be less incidents, I do believe, associated with violent crime involving firearms. Also, allowing offenders and repeat offenders to plead down and avoid time served should not be a consideration.

If I can legally hold a FOID card for decades, so can anyone with a clean record and stable mental health. This shouldn't even be an issue. It should be a mandatory part of firearm ownership. Everyone who wants to own or use firearms should be made to hold a valid FOID card or similar identification, should be made to take a Hunter's Safety Class or equivalent, and should be made to actively renew that identification every 5 or 10 years.

Why this isn't a mandatory, Federally recognized program, I'm sure I don't know. It won't stop all crime... nothing will... but it's a far better system to have in place than... nothing.

No offense to anyone, but why would it matter if someone didn't like the idea? It's a good one.

With so many apparent "bad apples" spoiling everything for everyone else, as is all too common in our society today, why would anyone complain about a decent idea that actually could work in lowering the incidents of violent, firearm related crimes?

Is it just easier to complain than actually look for and agree to a compromise? Or will some folks not be happy until we are all totally dependent upon our police state to protect us, when we know full well that they can't, and won't?

Of coursre I would NOT! Ive been shooting guns for well over 50 years. I need no govt agency to tell me a damned thing about MY guns. Why not lay off the baloney. attack the 1st amendment for a while. None of this anti gun bull is doing one bit of good. Try doing something that may help. address your congressmen and senators about the real reasons for gun crime and lay off the lawful gun owners.

I feel it's in everyone's best interest to find a compromise on this issue, to educate those without the knowledge, and as Marshallz says, to lead the way in a responsible and safe manner. Meeting this issue with violence or negativity will do no good.

We all know the anti-gun crowd and our government agencies are grasping at straws... in a seeming attempt to disarm the nation at some point in the future. That writing is on the wall already, and has been for some time. And though it will prove to be a difficult feat, we can already see that the focus has shifted from guns, which would prove difficult to remove from all public hands, to ammunition in a similar attempt to control the issue from a different direction.

We, as a society, should be looking for a way to close the holes that make it possible for the mentally ill and/or the violent criminal to obtain weaponry and ammunition, and we should be enforcing the laws we already have.

If a gun owner is legal and responsible, there is no reason he or she should not be willing to obtain a FOID card, or even to take a repeat firearm safety class. We feel that everyone in a household that contains guns should have to take a safety course, so everyone is familiar with the weapons kept, and the safe way to handle them.

My husband has attended over 10 Hunter's Safety classes in his lifetime to help others learn, including our own kids and other relatives and friends, and he's all for the idea that we should lead by example, not complain about having to repeat a short class that can only focus us further on safety.

If all 50 states had similar regulations, there wouldn't be so many loopholes to slip through, and if the Justice system would comply by actually locking up violent offenders instead of allowing for plea deals or probation, there would be less violence on the streets.

The choice to own firearms is entirely in the hands of the individual. If you don't feel comfortable owning or using a firearm, by all means do not. That choice is yours. But why would you want to take away that right from those who do want to own firearms and do use them with safety and responsibility?

In all seriousness, why would anyone want to live in a nation where the only armed people are law enforcement and criminals? I surely don't want my safety, my life, left in those hands only. I would like the chance to protect myself, to hunt for myself, and to use the guns I own for the purposes I need.

I can understand that some people don't want government inference in their lives... it's understandable... but when a nation has constant issues with mass shootings, some sort of compromise has to be reached. It makes more sense to have one set of federally recognized firearm regulations, some sort of background checks, some identification or method of telling the legal, responsible gun owners from those who don't comply or can't qualify.

We live within a society that has to have an agreed upon set of laws to protect everyone and the rights and freedoms we enjoy. There's no reason we can't be a safe and responsible society in which firearms are privately owned and used for various purposes.

If we meet such compromises, the only thing we have to deal with are those who won't comply with the law.

I just don't understand the mentality of 'I don't want to own a gun, so no one else should'... that same mentality that seeks to take away reproductive rights or keep consenting adults from all enjoying the same legal benefits of marriage. Just because something is your choice doesn't mean it should be everyone's only choice.

Guns can be dangerous, when not handled properly using safety and responsibility... but if more states were on the same legal page, I do think we'd see less problems.

"We all know the anti-gun crowd and our government agencies are grasping at straws..... but when a nation has constant issues with mass shootings, some sort of compromise has to be reached.".....

I'm not grasping at straws, I'm gasping at the number of deaths due to guns, an enormous number of deaths... and not just 'mass shootings' but a massive number of shootings every year, every decade.

Jesus, you think the gun deaths in Oakland, California is due to a 'mass shooting' ? Every day, I am imperiled by guns among society and not just from psychopaths.

I quote here from Molly Ivins...

"I am not anti-gun. I’m pro-knife. Consider the merits of the knife. In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We’d turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus, knives don’t ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives....

I collect knives as well as guns. Some are quite rare and valuable from early Japan and china. deadly as can be too.

I dont have a thing against a 1st time gun buyer taking a safety course, NRAQ offers many throuhout the year. cant go hunting here until you pass a safety course, delivered again by NRA members. I dont know what a FOID card is? I would be for something which allows gun purchases with no further checks if ya have ID stating you have been cleared for purchases. I am for a lot of things, but I am well aware thats NOT what the ant gun nuts are after. Thats been proven all too many times.

hey Marshall, its dumb for you to insinuate I am a shill for the NRA !I may be a member but I am not led around by or told what to say by anyone. in fact, I let the NRA know in no uncertain terms where I disagree with some of their stances.I pretty much march to my own beat thankyou.

I agree with you on this statement. But ranting just the opposite way: "Of coursre I would NOT! Ive been shooting guns for well over 50 years. I need no govt agency to tell me a damned thing about MY guns" is totally unproductive too. And not helpful to the cause of protecting 2nd Amendment rights.

When you make unreasonably shrill statements you come off as off-the-wall as those posters who are eager to give up everyone's right to own guns for self defense because they are unwilling to take on the responsibility to defending themselves and those they care for if need be.

There are several here who are trying to have a dialog, like David, Oct, Marshall, Jodi. If we're a microcosm of what's going on out in the rest of the world, is there no hope for a reasonable solution? I think there is; probably the biggest stumbling block is gun registration, which I for one am against.

FOID (Firearm Owners Identification) card: To legally possess or purchase firearms or ammunition, residents of the state of Illinois are required to have a FOID card.

How did gun possession become illegal in Illinois? That's ridiculous. It's as bad as needing a license or a permit for gun ownership.

Blacks fifth edition law dictionary: License: "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal".

When did the government make everything illegal? Marriage is now looked upon as illegal because your marriage won't be recognized by the state without a license. Driving is illegal because you need a license for that - though there are several court decisions on the right to travel and state statutes that would negate the need for a motorist to have a license.

I don't think you're ever going to get people to stop murdering each other. Anything in the wrong hands can be dangerous. Just look at what you can do with a piece of paper.

I'm with Fanci on this one. And I think Kyle Coplen's program great and hopes it spreads.

Anything in the wrong hands can be dangerous. Just look at what you can do with a piece of paper.

I missed that report about a piece of paper killing 30,000 people a year in America..... maybe you mean something like a bill Congress passed, say... Authorization For Use Of Military Force...? Or stopping some 'entitlement' to feed the poor or take care of the sick..?

***Anything in the wrong hands can be dangerous. Just look at what you can do with a piece of paper.***
"I missed that report about a piece of paper killing 30,000 people a year in America..... maybe you mean something like a bill Congress passed, say... Authorization For Use Of Military Force...? Or stopping some 'entitlement' to feed the poor or take care of the sick..?

Or maybe that's just giving you too much credit."

Nasty attitude. You feel like dissing people tonight. How unfortunate.

How unfortunate? Do I hear the pot calling the kettle black?..Nasty attitude for dismissing paper cuts? I see it as a compliment,... at least you didn't call me a sick sob like fanci.

“There is no character, howsoever good and fine, but it can be destroyed by ridicule, howsoever poor and witless. Observe the ass, for instance: his character is about perfect, he is the choicest spirit among all the humbler animals, yet see what ridicule has brought him to. Instead of feeling complimented when we are called an ass, we are left in doubt.”
― Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson

Speaking strictly for the birds, the tally continues for the days of the Condor (the bird, not the movie) as another report blames their deaths on lead from bullets. Now the community wants to ban lead ammo for hunting across California to save the Condor . This problem also exists in Arizona and Oregon, - google Condor lead poisoning and find many scientific articles, some more informative than my link.

But today's report focused on the NRA..."The California legislature is considering a bill that would ban the use of lead bullets in hunting across the state. It would be the first statewide ban in the country and in the midst of a tense national debate over gun rights, the bill, AB 711, is raising controversy...

"Through tests on hundreds of condor blood samples and feathers, Finkelstein’s lab has worked to trace the source of lead. In the majority of cases, she says it matches the chemical profile of lead bullets.
In response, former Governor Arnold Schwarzengger banned the use of lead bullets in hunting in 1997, but only in condor territory. Condors are still showing high levels of lead, which can shut down their digestive system.
“It only takes one meal so that’s why the problem is so severe,” Finkelstein says.
Now, the California legislature is considering taking the ban a step further by banning lead bullets for hunting statewide. Lead ammunition could still be used at shooting ranges."....

The NRA and other gun groups have targeted the scientific research, saying the lead could be coming from paint or garbage dumps. Hunters could use copper ammunition as an alternative, but it’s often twice as expensive. .....Lead was phased out of paint and gasoline decades ago. While AB 711 wouldn’t prohibit the sale of lead bullets, Fearing believes it would still be effective and could help other wildlife that also scavenge, like eagles and hawks.
“It’s just going to take some time, quite frankly, for ranchers and others to switch the ammunition they use on their properties and just for the culture within the hunting community to move to a place where they accept their responsibility,” she says.

'A five year old shot and killed his sister with a gun he'd been given for his birthday - it was made especially for small children '

Top prize for utterly moronic ideas - here in the UK, where the only guns are owned by legal enforcers or criminals, we ordinary people can be fairly certain that we are not likely to read this sort of thing in the local rag.....and amazingly, we are not being gunned down on our streets by said enforcers or crims.

I wonder which lead bullets theyve matched to? There are many different compositions used in different bullets. Many are now solid copper. lead is being less frequently used as projectile technology moves ahead. of course, we used several different leads when we cast depending on the firearm and the use. How would any one be able to tell? Of course lead, or some lead content is probably still the best for most uses.Its not all just about cost. There have been several attempts to ban lead bullets in the past 30 years.

Ive suggested several things which could be done in the past, probably several times. trying to blame me for crime is just stupid. I dont do crimes. Its a real problem, just like banning free speech and infringing on other rights. Ultimatly, those who commit crimes are the ones who need to pay, not the lawful people.

How many condors have died from being poisoned from spent lead bullets anyhow?
I looked it up, about 15 according to ARizona Game dept. I guess they want hunters in certain areas to use other bullets in their ammunition. probably a good idea in those areas where the birds concentrate. Solids are usually used on big game, dont know how they perform on smaller like deer, antelope etc?

The reason, said Finkelstein, is that a condor eat 75 to 150 dead animals a year.

“If just one has a lead bullet fragment, that can be enough to kill the bird,” she said.

Condors once ranged from British Columbia to Mexico. But because of habitat loss, hunting and lead poisoning, the population dwindled to just 22 nationwide by 1982.

Federal biologists captured all remaining wild condors in 1987 and began breeding them in zoos. The birds’ offspring have been gradually released back to the wild.

Today the California condor population has grown to 386. Of those, 213 live in the wild at Big Sur, Pinnacles National Monument in San Benito County, Southern California, Arizona, Utah and Mexico. The other 173condors live in captivity, at places such as the Los Angeles Zoo.

Although the population growth has been impressive, it is deceptive because it is highly dependent upon human intervention, the researchers said in Monday’s study, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Every free-flying condor has a radio or GPS collar to track it. Nearly all of them are captured twice a year and tested for lead. A few chicks have been born in the wild, but biologists still put out out food, such as stillborn calves, for the birds to eat so their population can have a chance to grow.

Monday’s study, which also looked at lead levels in condor feathers, confirmed that lead in the birds is coming from bullets, rather than other sources such as old paint chips, by matching isotope levels of lead in bullets tolead in the condors.

Researchers were surprised, Finkelstein said, by the extensive poisoning.

For example, 30 percent of all condors captured every year have lead levels that, while not potentially fatal, can block reproduction and cause immune system problems.

And 20 percent of the birds captured every year have levels that could kill them if not treated with chelation, a process where condors are fed calcium-based drugs that bind to the lead and help them pass it naturally. But the process also strips nutrients, and can cause the birds to be hospitalized a month or more.

In California, the state Department of Fish and Game and some hunting and environmental groups have worked to promote the lead ban in condor habitat. Some surveys show high compliance rates. But there is little enforcement, and ranchers or hunters can still use lead bullets and shot, which are cheaper and more readily available than other types of ammunition, such as copper, with little risk of getting caught.

I didn't mean to get us so off track. There have been many studies of lead poisoning from ammo in Condors. This link given below as many other links that are informative. Such as:

"Frequently Asked Questions about condors

View the trailer of Scavenger Hunt, a documentary film about condors and lead http://vimeo.com/60301036
Selected Literature on the Effects of Lead on Condors and Other Wildlife
Lead concentrations in the blood of Big Sur California Condors
Lead poisoning and the deceptive recovery of the critically endangered California Condor
Health Risks from Lead-based Ammunition in the Environment
Patterns of mortality in California condors (Rideout)

Here's a snip from one that might answer fanci's question

Many condors are treated successfully for lead poisoning and returned to the wild each year. Without a doubt, lead poisoning is the most significant mortality factor for condors, representing 30% of all known fatalities since the reintroduction program began.

How do we know condors get lead from bullets and not from other sources in the environment?
Recent studies using distinct isotope signatures of lead have been used to determine sources of lead in a variety of applications. Church et. al. (In Press and not yet available) compared the isotopic composition of commonly used ammunition purchased in the range of the condor to the lead found in condor blood and found these two sources to match. When lead in the blood of condors was elevated, indicating a recent exposure, the source of the lead was predominantly from ammunition. Furthermore, in both California and Arizona, either lead shot and/or rifle fragments have been recovered in the digestive systems of condors since the 1980's. Given the tendency of lead to fragment, it is no wonder why lead ammunition is commonly ingested by condors, which only eat the remains of dead animals.

alexr"""""""and about 29 from our good old right wing tea party types."

Mind showing me proof of where 29 people were killed by the tea party.........and if you can't prove that how about not using the "tea party types" expression which is basically you trying to smear the tea party.

alexr"""""I'm not grasping at straws, I'm gasping at the number of deaths due to guns, an enormous number of deaths... and not just 'mass shootings' but a massive number of shootings every year, every decade. "

The majority of the people here on HT that I've read all say they don't want to take the right to own a gun away. Just out of curiousity what do you want done? With alll the gun laws, many of which are not enforced, do you think more laws will make a difference.

I've suggested time after time that it is society that has the problem..........the kids who kill each other in shoot outs, the person who perpetrates mass killings, the parents who leave the guns where they can be found by children, etc, etc. I could take a gun, load it and lay it, with the safety off, on a table and unless someone comes, picks it up and fires it it will continue to lay there and do nothing. Not only does society have a problem with gun violence but with other kinds of violence, theft, rape, child abuse, wife abuse, you name it. So tell me again how it's all the guns fault and not the society we live in and lets continue to ignore the real problem.......the way our children are being brought up.

When I was a child my father and the fathers of all my friends had guns and they didn't have to lock them up to keep us from getting them out and playing with them. We knew, those were real guns, you don't touch them. I'm amazed at the kids I see today in malls or grocery stores whose parents have absolutely no control over them. It's easy to understand one of those kids getting a gun even after being told not to; yet if it happens and a child kills some one it's all the guns fault, not the parents or kid who got the gun out to begin with.....and at a certain age kids do know better. Yet you have the gall to preach that it's all the guns fault. Sorry, but our society's problems are much bigger than people owning guns.

alexr"""""You want protection? Get a dog."

I have two of them thank you and they are protection trained but I am not going to send them into danger if I can be there first with my gun. They are my backup. I'll protect them just like I would family because they are family.

It's no one's business how I choose to protect my home as long as it is legal. A gun is preferable to a dog for a lot of reasons.

I, too remember visiting friend's houses where loaded guns were all over the house. While all my dad had was a shotgun and rifle, I doubt they were loaded and they were in their closet, a place we had no business and never went. When friends visited it never occurred to any of us kids, or to anyone visiting us, that we should go snooping around our parent's closets or drawers, and even then, we were taught very early stay away from guns, don't touch them and if anyone goes to do it, go get an adult immediately and get away from them.

I can't explain why this was except that we had plenty of chores and work to do, and quite frankly it did not occur to any of us to do anything we weren't supposed to because we knew there would be serious consequences--not to mention not wanting to disappoint your family.

How many young people that wind up in serious trouble with guns feel the same way?

So, years ago there were firearms in homes propped up and in closets and children managed to stay away from them--in much greater numbers than now.

Lady Brat is right--people just aren't rearing their children properly. Kayden Kayden come here don't do that Kayden no McDonalds for you if you don't Hannah Hannah stop it Hannah. Then there's little Willie following his Mama around Walmart, being good and she takes off and he can't keep up and she jerks him around by the shoulder or arm and screams at him (which I've seen so many times it's all I can do not to intervene).

Some parents spend more time and consideration selecting the stick people to adhere to the back of their SUVs and selecting the pattern on their nails at the salon than to their children.

Increased gun deaths--from children getting their hands on loaded guns, to the pathetic, sick and twisted minds that need attention so badly that they plan mass murders of innocent peers, aren't because of inanimate pieces of metal.

They're due to the people that fail these young people for which they are responsible. Society, and the media, and Dr. Spock have some culpability in their promotion of unbridled and unaccountable hedonism.

Oh well. Let me run down to the gun show and buy a 9 mm pistol with an extended magazine out of some guy's car trunk. We're both "collectors", so no need for pesky back ground checks. I'll leave it, loaded, in the drawer by the bed.

Oh well. Let me run down to the gun show and buy a 9 mm pistol with an extended magazine out of some guy's car trunk. We're both "collectors", so no need for pesky back ground checks. I'll leave it, loaded, in the drawer by the bed.

If some kid finds it, well, kids these days.

*

David--no one on this forum that I am aware of condones, and certainly I don't condone just putting a loaded gun without a lock in the drawer by your bed with the attitude you sarcastically characterized.

Surely you know that.

Your response is not logical, in my opinion.

The fact of the matter, it is PEOPLE who kill innocent people with guns that are the problem, not the guns. Take away the guns and they'll just find something else.

And when you take away the guns you've handed everything over to the government, and taken away rights from people that have done NOTHING to deserve to have those rights taken away except that it makes some feel better.

Well, it's been quoted here I won't bother, but we all know what some of our forefathers thought about what happens when people are too lazy to do the right thing and hand their rights over to the government to protect them, and they were right.

Lady Brat, I don't have time to respond right now, but I promise I will, oh, I will... meanwhile look at the link I gave above - Mother Jones Magazine- I gave the link already, you just didn't bother.... Here's a snip

"Jihadists killed 17 people in the United States in four separate incidents during this time, according to data collected by journalist Peter Bergen and the New America Foundation. All four of these incidents involved guns, including Nidal Hassan's shooting rampage at Fort Hood, which killed 13 people. In contrast, right-wing extremists killed 29 people during those 11 years.

"alexr"""""I'm not grasping at straws, I'm gasping at the number of deaths due to guns..."

A darling play on words. Very nice, Alex.

Dynamite posts, Lady & Demi. Spot on. Of course most on HT are well past child-rearing age at this point, so IMO they probably won't give your very salient points on child-rearing any thought at all. The few regular posters I can think of who say they have children still young enough to be influenced much by their parents seem to be exceptional, by today's standards.

Guns are just tools. I think the bigger problem is the "tools" so carelessly used these days to produce children that parents are unwilling/unable to care for properly. Maybe there should be more restrictions on them. Background check and registration before one can use that tool. Just think of what responsible impregnation would do for the public assistance rolls. And it would cut down on the number of abortions, too. I think everyone would be happy about that, whether one is pro choice or not.

I know, I know: one can be attacked with a gun, that's different. Oh, wait...

Well, no massacres then. Does creating a whole bunch of baby-mommas count? Let's see, we're got the mommas, and X amount of offspring. That could be a whole lot of people, all affected by that irresponsibly used tool.

I know this is a silly analogy, just sayin'. A gun is just a harmless tool until a human operates it.

Its really simple folks if you want to take guns away you have to change the constitution so lobby your Governors, House reps and Senators and change the constitution. Untill then it is the part of the law of this land.

As a side note what has been left out in this discussion is a vast majority of the killings are bad guys killing bad guys and if you look at the stats and want to be honest with yourselves in New York it doesn't take a rocket scientist to watch the nightly news and see whos doing what and if you want illegal guns off the street you have to stop and search and profile we cant have it both ways, and we can run around in circles and blame the education system but the fact of the matter is the kids don't stay home at night and hit the books and most yes most 74% come from single parent homes. That's just the truth.

As a civil libertarian, I of course support the Second Amendment. And I believe it means exactly what it says: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Fourteen-year-old boys are not part of a well-regulated militia. Members of wacky religious cults are not part of a well-regulated militia. Permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying the security of this free state.

I am intrigued by the arguments of those who claim to follow the judicial doctrine of original intent. How do they know it was the dearest wish of Thomas Jefferson's heart that teen-age drug dealers should cruise the cities of this nation perforating their fellow citizens with assault rifles? Channelling?

There is more hooey spread about the Second Amendment. It says quite clearly that guns are for those who form part of a well-regulated militia, i.e., the armed forces including the National Guard. The reasons for keeping them away from everyone else get clearer by the day.

The comparison most often used is that of the automobile, another lethal object that is regularly used to wreak great carnage. Obviously, this society is full of people who haven't got enough common sense to use an automobile properly. But we haven't outlawed cars yet.

We do, however, license them and their owners, restrict their use to presumably sane and sober adults and keep track of who sells them to whom. At a minimum, we should do the same with guns.

In truth, there is no rational argument for guns in this society. This is no longer a frontier nation in which people hunt their own food. It is a crowded, overwhelmingly urban country in which letting people have access to guns is a continuing disaster. Those who want guns - whether for target shooting, hunting or potting rattlesnakes (get a hoe) - should be subject to the same restrictions placed on gun owners in England - a nation in which liberty has survived nicely without an armed populace.

The argument that "guns don't kill people" is patent nonsense. Anyone who has ever worked in a cop shop knows how many family arguments end in murder because there was a gun in the house. Did the gun kill someone? No. But if there had been no gun, no one would have died. At least not without a good footrace first. Guns do kill. Unlike cars, that is all they do.

Michael Crichton makes an interesting argument about technology in his thriller "Jurassic Park." He points out that power without discipline is making this society into a wreckage. By the time someone who studies the martial arts becomes a master - literally able to kill with bare hands - that person has also undergone years of training and discipline. But any fool can pick up a gun and kill with it.

"A well-regulated militia" surely implies both long training and long discipline. That is the least, the very least, that should be required of those who are permitted to have guns, because a gun is literally the power to kill. For years, I used to enjoy taunting my gun-nut friends about their psycho-sexual hang-ups - always in a spirit of good cheer, you understand. But letting the noisy minority in the National Rifle Association force us to allow this carnage to continue is just plain insane.

I do think gun nuts have a power hang-up. I don't know what is missing in their psyches that they need to feel they have to have the power to kill. But no sane society would allow this to continue.

Alexr, banning the guns won't do a d*nm thing to lower the murder rate. For those who a hell bent on killing someone will find others ways. Knives, poisons, heavy blunt objects, etc will do the job also.

Change your focus from an inanimate object to the human doing the firing of the gun. Work to change their mindset and hearts and teach them some morals to live by.

Raising the cry to "Ban them all" does nothing to help. Just creating a large black market for guns. Get out there and help people to respect a gun.

The agenda of people like Alex is not to better understand the meaning of the 2nd amendments, they would do a bit more research in that direction if they truly wanted to understand the intent. Its a waste of time to suggest that they do.
Also, their agenda is ti remove all fire-arms from public ownership. They have little interest in trying to do anything about crime/criminals. They are totally blinded by their agenda of hate and fear of fire-arms.

Alex: "I do think gun nuts have a power hang-up. I don't know what is missing in their psyches that they need to feel they have to have the power to kill. But no sane society would allow this to continue.

Ban the damn things. Ban them all."

I worry about losing our freedom, little by little, inch by inch. There was a statement on another thread, it was Patricia:

"The fact that there is a slight chance of stopping a crime before it happens when you just stop people arbitrarily should not be worth the loss of your constituted rights against illegal search-one of those price of freedom things."

Patricia was talking about law enforcement harrassment of people based upon their physical appearance, but I don't see why it can't apply to the rights of individuals to own guns.

Last post on my own thread. The problem is wide and far reaching. Fire arms are dangerous and can be misused to kill people, so are cars and cars have to be licensed and registered and people have to be licensed to use them. This should apply to fire arms as well. Bullet striations and serial numbers can be registered too just as vin numbers are. Driving school is mandatory for new drivers and in some other instances. Schooling should be mandatory for people that own fire arms.

The other aspect of the problem is society in general and the way government is not doing the job we hired them for. Education, implementation of the existing government programs to help people maintain a semblance of dignity and a fair living wage would be a good start to making an atmosphere of living that would improve many things including understanding laws and how to live together safely and productively. We are dropping to the level of third world countries in many aspects of our living.

It will take quite a while to catch up to other countries at this point as we have had so much stalling and nonexistent work from the people we hired to represent us. They have not earned any of the money we have paid them. The corruption has made it impossible to trust any politician as they are influenced by corporate money. There need to be limits on how politics is influenced and a turnover of the existing roll call. I am afraid that will take a lot of years leaving the common man at the mercy of the money mongers that throw their influence around so readily. This is the best that I can offer to my question that none else has even taken note of and the whole reason for starting this thread. Great example of how we will not fix the problem.

I don't have a problem with background checks, carrying an identification card, attending a safety course, or registering certain types of weaponry... these are logical regulations to have in place when the numbers of firearm owners are so many.

I keep saying that if all 50 states were on the same page, I think we'd have less issues to worry about.

As a responsible gun owner, I'm willing to meet somewhere in the middle of compromise... as opposed to those who find any regulation on the issue to be obscene. I don't know why anyone would be opposed to a background check, or to repeating a short course in hunter's safety. And why wouldn't we want every state to hold the same regulations and enforce the law?

What I don't understand is the idea of "ban them all". Why would anyone want to remove personal or property or livestock protection, the ability to provide food or a livelihood, or the idea of competition shooting as a sport from every hand in the nation?

We DO realize that not everyone lives in an urban setting where those ever-trustworthy police are seconds away from providing personal protection for us, don't we?

And we do realize that firearms are inanimate objects until a finger with intent is placed at the trigger, don't we?

And more importantly, we do realize that banning all privately owned firearms will leave us with only 2 population segments that remain armed, don't we?

And what about those people who rely on hunting and/or trapping for their very existence? (Stop killing innocent animals and buy meat at the grocery store where it originates? Is that the thought?)

What about those people who live where predators include bear, cougar and other dangerous animals? What about people charged with protecting livestock? What about people who don't live in a city setting?

The right to bear arms is one I don't want to give away. Those arms serve many purposes when a person lives and makes a living from the land. I should not be a prisoner to the fears or ignorance of others who either don't have experience with, or don't want to have experience with firearms. I'm perfectly comfortable handling firearms that serve the purposes I need them for, and I handle those firearms with great responsibility, placing safety first.

I would never force anyone to own a gun if they didn't want to... much like I would never force a religious belief on anyone, or force anyone to hold my opinion on abortion... so, why should I be penalized because of someone else's fears, lack of knowledge or experience, or because of their personal beliefs?

Don, I agree completely. Big money interests controls too much of our government by lobby, of lobby and for the corporation...

All the same I will cheerfully debate this issue in hope that some light is shed and that the 'wrap yourself in the flag' boys and girls can see how ridiculous the public relations people hired by the NRA are when compared to the actual number of deaths - the tally that continues even after the horrific massacre of children at Newton, after another volley of death in our inner cities and their suburbs, after even another hunter, drunk or sober shoots their buddy in the face.

--------------------------------

The "ban the guns" article was written by Molly Ivins, not me. If it bothers you, then that is what I'm sure she intended. But y'all seem to have skipped over where she says, "Obviously, this society is full of people who haven't got enough common sense to use an automobile properly. But we haven't outlawed cars yet.
We do, however, license them and their owners, restrict their use to presumably sane and sober adults and keep track of who sells them to whom. At a minimum, we should do the same with guns."
----------------------------------------------------------
This is basically what Don, myself and others have said time and again...

here's a part of what I did say from a post above
"Playing soccer or basketball or eating fatty foods, or having a drink is not the same and I resent that argument. And if shooting a bow and arrow was contributing the same amount of deaths and murders as guns I would feel the same way. But it doesn't.

I just feel those arguments are so spurious that they should be stood up too. And I'm sure we've mentioned many a time that driving a car requires a license and a test and cars are registered and are required to have insurance and even a hairdresser has to have a license etc....

While I agree with Jodik on many issues, including the 2nd amendment, these apologies for lack of gun control are just sickening. Even free speech has some controls (hate speech, child pornography, inciting a riot, even bullying in some places like schools.)

You just insult our intelligence when you bring up personal or home protection with guns, as if that precludes registration and taking responsibility by requiring safety classes and the like...

We have a right to travel, there is no right to an automobuile. We puinish bad drivers , we dont punish good drivers.
We DO have a right to fire arms while there are those who desire to punish good gun ownrers while they voice very little regarding punishing the bad guys.
Of course we all know there are many restrictions to firearms. The bad guys just dont heed them.

We have a right to travel, there is no right to an automobuile. We puinish bad drivers , we dont punish good drivers.

and we license and train all drivers. As well as require insurance, registration, and taxes.

We have a right to defend ourselves. And we have a right to own a fire arm. I don't believe that extends to a right to no training, no back ground checks, no registration, no insurance, and no liability.

David, I think part of the problem is that there's a grand difference in the visuals and stereotypes versus reality brought to the table where firearms discussions are concerned.

When I think of firearms, I immediately think of shotguns and rifles of various calibers, which are utilitarian to my own uses. I don't think of the popular weaponry used in action movies, or the current array of handguns and other weapons used by law enforcement, military, depicted in video games, or taken off criminals upon arrest. The difference between what's actually utilitarian or popular, and what's been implanted by media or associated with criminals or video games... is rather stark in comparison, I think.

I also think that a lot of folks carry around bits of misinformation about many of the more popular firearms either portrayed to the public, or owned or sold.

For example, the ever popular AR-15 is not designated as an "assault rifle", the AR actually standing for "ArmaLite rifle". This is a semiautomatic rifle, which means it fires one round with each pull of the trigger. An actual assault rifle would be fully automatic, a 'machine gun', which have been primarily restricted from civilian ownership since 1934. The 5.56 mm Predator features a 20-inch barrel and takes a five-round magazine that's legal for hunting in most states. Hunters favor it because it's easy to carry and highly accurate.

The attached is a look into the 5 most popular guns in civilian hands... as of a few years ago.

That's not to say it's my top 5 most liked firearms list, or those of anyone but the article's author, based upon manufacturing data, historical significance and anecdotal information from gun sites and enthusiasts, according to the article, itself.

When the word "gun" is mentioned, what picture immediately comes to mind? Do you think of shotguns, pistols, or another of the small arms categories? Or do you think of military and law enforcement weaponry? Or do you think in terms of what was used in the last action movie you watched, the last video game played, or what kind of guns were in the news last?

When I think of guns, my mind immediately pictures a .12 gauge shotgun or a .22 rifle. Why? Because those are the most often used firearms for our purposes.

Even the manufacturers thought of as being best for a particular firearm will differ between owners or enthusiasts. Some people prefer Remington when it comes to shotguns, while others like Ithaca, or Savage, or another manufacturer.

For instance, I prefer Marlin when it comes to a.22 rifle... preferably lever action, though I have also shot bolt-action. In my opinion, they can't be beat for accuracy. I like an Ithaca for a shotgun, though a Remington 870 isn't a bad choice. It will all depend on what a person likes, what their needs are, and what they consider affordable.

But, really... what comes to mind when you think of guns? Does the word "firearm" or "weaponry" bring up a different mental image? And what sources do those mental images come from?

Are we speaking from hands on experience with guns? Or are we speaking from what we've been shown by media and other secondary sources? Where does our information and mental image originate?

I think those are pertinent questions to ask. The answers can mean a lot in how we respond.

When we speak of guns, are we speaking of actual weapons owned and used by the public, or do we have a different mental image that doesn't quite capture the reality of public ownership and use?

We have a right to travel, there is no right to an automobuile. We puinish bad drivers , we dont punish good drivers.
We DO have a right to fire arms while there are those who desire to punish good gun ownrers while they voice very little regarding punishing the bad guys.
Of course we all know there are many restrictions to firearms. The bad guys just dont heed them.

I'm not sure - unless you mean that for rural folks, 'gun' is more a hunting/varmint thing, and not a concealed weapon/personal protection thing as it might be for urban folks.

But the same criteria apply - training, safety, where you keep it and who has access to it. And just what is you you need to do? I don't need a gun that holds 30 rounds to shoot a squirrel, deer, or a duck. I don't think anyone needs a gun that holds 30 rounds for personal protection either - sheech, if you can't it something with the first 5 or 6, maybe you shouldn't be shooting.

I don't see how passing a back ground check would bother anybody, given that it does help keep guns away from those that shouldn't have one. Colorado refuses between 3 and 4 % of attempted purchases - you beat up your wife and have a restraining order, then you just forfeited your right to go buy a gun. And if you think that they got it wrong, go ahead and appeal - they'll reverse it if you're right.

I don't see how holding adults liable for damages if some kid - theirs or a neighbors' - gets a hold of their unsecured weapon and uses it. Some states do that, and some states don't.

And I don't buy into the concept that I need an arsonal capable of taking on some ATF/FBI SWAT team or the National Guard or the Sheriff dept to water some tree of liberty.

In 2010, 19,392 Americans, including 749 children and teenagers, killed themselves with a gun. Boys were eight times more likely than girls to die in a gun suicide. A little over one in four (28 percent) gun deaths in children and teens were suicides and 66 percent were homicides. For adults 20 and older, it was almost the reverse. Two out of three deaths (65 percent) were suicides and 32 percent were homicides. Almost 88 percent of the victims of gun suicides of all ages were White, but for children and teens, American Indian or Alaska Native children and teens had the highest rate of gun suicide, nearly twice as high as White children and teens. Gun suicides have contributed to a terrible overall trend: Suicide has now overtaken car accidents as the leading cause of injury-related deaths for the total population in the United States.

Just look at the number of deaths caused by guns in England, as has been mentioned before.

But let me just say this. The NRA doesn't care about the Constitution of the United States. It doesn't care about the 2nd Amendment .

If the NRA could reference the Bible or Jesus, they would do it to achieve their means. They are strictly a lobbying and money business. Good God, they lobby the Congress to prevent pediatricians from asking if families with children keep guns in their home! That is just sick- and a violation of our 1st Amendment rights of free speech.

We've listed many of the nefarious deeds this organization has done on other threads, must we list them again? They don't care about tracing explosives, or poisoning our environment with lead. Just the opposite- they are enemies of the planet and it's people.

The NRA could not care less about anyone's rights- they care only for their money.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is a link to a radio story about a gun loving family with a father who thought he taught his children well... well, think again, and again.

Suicide is already a criminal act and using a gun to kill yourself is a felony. At issue here is how do depressed children and teens acquire a gun for them to commit suicide. Nothing to do with gun laws. Guns are already ubiquitous in this society.

Without the nearly effortless and mostly successful self-annihilation by gun, the child or teen would have to pick another means of killing himself or herself. These are often harder to achieve the goal of suicide and sometimes unsuccessful.

I agree with that, and its a shame. Isnt it silly that its a felony to commit suicide? Do we need that law? Were they at all worried about commiting a crime? How should we view that action, as another criminal act? I suppose there are many ways the7y acquire that weapon, probably many times the way any criminal would, illegally. We cant prevent everything that happens. Whjat do you propose as a reasonable effort to end those suicides by gun?
We had 4 suicides at our flood control project in 15 years, 1 by handgun, 1 by shotgun and 2 by drowning. None were pleasant to tend to.

I agree with that, and its a shame. Isnt it silly that its a felony to commit suicide? Do we need that law? Were they at all worried about commiting a crime? How should we view that action, as another criminal act? I suppose there are many ways the7y acquire that weapon, probably many times the way any criminal would, illegally. We cant prevent everything that happens. Whjat do you propose as a reasonable effort to end those suicides by gun?
We had 4 suicides at our flood control project in 15 years, 1 by handgun, 1 by shotgun and 2 by drowning. None were pleasant to tend to.